Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Olavo de Carvalho Praises Socialist Militant
and Says He Would Even Work with Satan for Brazil

By Julio
Severo

The
title of this article was based on the original title of a BBC report
in Portuguese that says, “Olavo de Carvalho Praises Suplicy and Says He Would
Work with Satan for Brazil.” I had to replace Suplicy with socialist militant,
because English-speaking readers do not know he is such a militant. The original
BBC report covered an event called “Brazil Conference,” in Harvard. It is
understandable why BBC used Suplicy. Its report, only in Portuguese, was not
directed to an international audience.

BBC says,

“Reputed as an
ideologically opposite extreme of councilman Eduardo Suplicy (PT-SP),
philosopher Olavo de Carvalho declared that he approves the idea of a basic
income of citizenship, which is a bill of Suplicy, a member of the Workers’
Party, advocating a minimum wage to every citizen in Brazil. Carvalho said that
he would work with Suplicy to improve it.

“Suplicy is a
very nice guy and his idea is not bad — everybody having an income,” said
Carvalho in an exclusive interview to BBC Brazil in the Harvard University, in Massachusetts.

Suplicy
mentioned basic income of citizenship in all of his answers. His bill proposes a
basic income to every citizen, wealthy or poor, including foreigners living in
Brazil for more than five years.

Carvalho
added, “Basic income is morally right.”

In
the ruling years of the Workers’ Party (2003-2016) Brazil began
“bolsa-família,” a populist family-fund program from the Brazilian socialist government
providing cash to millions of Brazilians. This program was directed only to
poor families. Yet, Suplicy’s proposal is more socialistically ambitious and expansive
and seeks to grant automatically free wages, or free money, to every Brazilian
citizen. This is much more extensive and socialist than “bolsa-família,” which
was funded by tax-payers.

Suplicy’s
proposal would similarly be funded by tax-payers.

How
could Carvalho improve such socialist proposal? If state socialism (funded by
tax-payers) is abhorrent for him, what about Catholic socialism? Because
Carvalho says that he is a Catholic, would his alternative get the Catholic
Church to fund fully a free wage to every Brazilian citizen? Or what about a Masonic
socialism? Considering that Carvalho has shown admiration for Freemasonry,
would he interested in convincing Freemasonry to fund it?

Carvalho’s
debate with Suplicy was just a microcosm of 100 other debates with Brazilian
speakers and moderators. The event, held in Harvard by Harvard and MIT
Brazilian students, brought together a very high number of Brazilian speakers,
including former President Dilma Rousseff, Federal Judge Sérgio Moro, Supreme
Court Justices Gilmar Mendes and Luís Roberto Barroso and former Senator Marina
Silva. Each one of them took part in a debate with another individual with
similar social prominence.

According
to BBC:

The conference’s
objective, according to its organizers, is to bring near individuals who are in
opposite extremes.

“In Brazil,
Right and Left just do not talk,” said researcher David Pares, one of the
presidents of Brazil Conference, in the beginning of the week.

“People only
share what they believe. We see it as an absence of dialogue between different
ideals and this is the biggest problem in polarization. The conference’s idea
is to help people to demystify the opposite extreme,” he said.

Carvalho
fulfilled the event’s objective: he talked nicely about socialist Suplicy and
about his socialist proposal. It is impressive that he called Suplicy “a very
nice guy,” saying that his socialist idea “is not bad.” In contrast, he is not
known for saying nice things to conservatives. In a December 2016 interview to
BBC, Carvalho was presented as a right-winger fighting other prominent
right-wingers in Brazil. In fact, he is known for saying not only unpleasing and
immoral things about right-wing leaders, but also for actually reviling them.

Even
though the event was held in Harvard, warranting spotlight and massive media
visibility in the United States, the specific debate of Carvalho, held last
Friday (April 7), had gained a limited spotlight only in the Portuguese service
of BBC, whose English version made no report of it.

Google search shows (from a April
7-12 span in the search) no spotlight in the U.S. media for Carvalho’s debate,
six days after the event.

Evidently,
the American public had no interest in a Brazilian event in U.S. Even though
some names of speakers are very famous in Brazil, 100 is too much to sort out
through, and any name less known than Rousseff and Moro was not even considered
for attention. At least, no member of the big U.S. media paid any attention.

Yet,
even when the big U.S. media avoids an event, the American conservative media,
which is very powerful, covers conservative speakers, especially if they are
speaking in Harvard. But no member of the U.S. conservative media got involved.

Be it
as it may, the microcosm of Carvalho’s debate with socialist Suplicy in no way
resembled conservatism in defense or opposition to ideas. Suplicy’s proposal was
not conservative.

Was
Carvalho’s answer conservative? Hardly. In fact, his concept of conservatism is
so misty as his esoteric past. Some weeks ago he said in his Facebook page:

So when I am
introduced as a “conservative philosopher,” the only answer coming to my mind is:
“Conservative is ‘puta que o pariu’ (an offensive Brazilian slang which means ‘son
of a bitch’ or ‘fucking hell,’ but the real translation is: ‘a prostitute who
gave birth’), who preserved you in her belly for nine months instead of
dropping you in the toilet.”

With
such dirty talk, it is understandable why Carvalho did not take advantage of
the opportunity to defend conservative values. While Suplicy defended his
socialist values, Carvalho limited himself to praise him.

In
Brazil Carvalho is known for condemning “bolsa família,” but in Harvard he
praised a worst socialist model of “bolsa família.” In Portuguese, never in
English, Carvalho unjustly reviles Protestantism, Luther and Calvin with his
typical foul mouth, but in Harvard he abstained himself from reviling this
university, founded by a committed Protestant, which today is a center of
Marxism, feminism, witchcraft, etc. Besides, Harvard receives funding from
Saudi Arabia. Harvard deserves to be criticized.

This
is not a problem for Carvalho: years ago he received an award from the Saudi
dictatorship (which the U.S. media insists on calling “government”) for a
biography of Mohammed he had written. If this is not to cooperate with Satan, I
do not know what it is.

If,
as affirmed by BBC, Carvalho would work with Satan in political dealings with
socialists like Suplicy, it is something that remains to be seen, but many
things have already been seen in Olavo’ history several times. According to
BBC, he “worked with Satan” in the past. In his interview to
the Portuguese service of BBC (not available in English) in December 2016,
Carvalho talked about his involvement in astrology (he was the founder of the first
school of astrologers in Brazil) and in Islamic witchcraft.

To
BBC, he said that this experience was “absolutely indispensable” for his formation.

In
the interview, BBC introduced Carvalho as follows:

Born in
Campinas, SP, 69 years ago, a philosophy teacher having never graduated in a
college and adherent of the theory that “the entity called the Inquisition is a
fictional invention of Protestants,” Carvalho has been amassing opponents in
the same intensity he is defended by his fans.

The
BBC interview was a major breakthrough because even though Carvalho says that
all the Left hates the Inquisition and uses it to attack Catholics, the massively
left-wing Brazilian media has never used the Inquisition to attack Carvalho.
BBC was the first major Portuguese channel to mention Carvalho and his defense of
the Inquisition.

BBC
said,

The views of
this philosopher on the role of the Catholic Church have produced criticism
from Brazilian evangelicals. Carvalho wrote in Twitter in 2013 that “the entity
called the Inquisition is a fictional invention of Protestants.”

“Even in the
popular image of the Inquisition fires, lies are predominant. Everybody believe
that condemned individuals ‘died burned,’ amid horrible suffering. The flames
were high, more than 16 feet high, to hinder suffering. The condemned
individuals (less than ten a year in two dozen nations) died suffocated in a
few minutes, before the flames could touch them.”

According to
him, heretics — “less than ten a year in two dozen nations” — died suffocated before
the flames could touch them. He has been criticized in the social media for
such affirmation…

Two years later,
he reviled Luther and Calvin, the main leaders of the Protestant Reformation. “The
Catholic Church has been overcrowded by sons of bitches during the centuries,
but the Protestant church was already born founded by two sons of a bitch.”

Carvalho
is dividing the Brazilian Right on many conservative issues, including
homosexuality, which he believes is natural, but he has had a major victory: he
is unifying the Catholic Right with his strident pro-Inquisition discourse.

In my
view, any individual who worked with the Inquisition 500 years ago worked with
Satan. And any individual today who wants to sanitize the Inquisition actually
works with Satan.

A
deep esoteric background has made possible for Carvalho to work to rehabilitate
the Inquisition.

If
the Brazilian Left has never used the Inquisition to attack Carvalho, why would
apostate Harvard, immersed in Marxism and Satanism, see a problem with a
Brazilian working with Satan to advocate the revisionism of the Inquisition?